Re: Immanuel Kant and Scott Peck

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:41:40 -0700, Just Me wrote:

> For example: no aspect of the law, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" can
> be brought into the laboratory for observation and experiment.

To take up this point...

Yes, the observer must move out of the lab, outside of controlled
conditions and most of all outside of the world of absolutes found, or
thought to be found, in the physical world.

To the horror of both moral absolutists and amoral anarchists, law, which
is a system of morality, is relative to changing specifics, 'pure reason'
is one abstracted from concrete. It is tied to specific concrete
experiences that guide, not so much 'good' and 'bad', but more 'better'
and 'worse' or harmful/helpful for some or for all.

Dying after eating a poison plant can be tested. A law or commandment
that says not to, can not.

> And for this reason the very noumenal quality of things like
> adultery, murder, human kindness, the Oedipus complex, any alleged
> lies behind the War in Iraq cannot be touched by the empirical method,
> which is bound to turn up as much date for as against the endless
> argumentation.

Endless from pure choice. Humans actually engaged in such things need
resolve for basic survival and security. Law attempts to do this via
evidence that can be commonly held and examined. Morality does this via
belief but both, on a good day that is, are derived from the concrete
consequences those acts bring.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]